My thought is simplification. We do not want any regulations that are duplicated of existing legislation or H&S regulations.

Simplify; or face expensive lawyers arguing in the high court which act or regulation is correct.

Further confusion and delays are caused to essential projects because governments order a hugely costly report.

We are engineers and need to follow quick, clear guidelines to design or maintain equipment without legal worries.

Recommendations are preferred to regulations and passing laws should be the very last resort.

Think about the low voltage directive which as far as electricity is concerned sums up what is required for H&S.

You cannot simplify a complex problem without creating a higher risk that things will go wrong ... in any discipline. It is the constant profit-motivated pressure people find themselves under that allows them to make poor safety decisions in the name of expediency of the moment over compliance. Just look at the evidence collected in by the Grenfell Fire Inquiry that reports too many safety decisions were taken for what seemed the right reasons at the time but now cannot be justified with the benefit of hindsight. If the threat of prosecution by an enforcing authority is not enough to motivate employers to ensure their employees and their contractors work safely (in every meaning of the word), then the recent subtle change in the way current legislation is making it far easier for people who have suffered harm or financial loss to seek redress should. Although I agree with the common thread that has been expressed by many people that it is unclear what REUL is intended to achieve, it must not be allowed to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 

You cannot simplify a complex problem without creating a higher risk that things will go wrong ... in any discipline. It is the constant profit-motivated pressure people find themselves under that allows them to make poor safety decisions in the name of expediency of the moment over compliance. Just look at the evidence collected in by the Grenfell Fire Inquiry that reports too many safety decisions were taken for what seemed the right reasons at the time but now cannot be justified with the benefit of hindsight. If the threat of prosecution by an enforcing authority is not enough to motivate employers to ensure their employees and their contractors work safely (in every meaning of the word), then the recent subtle change in the way current legislation is making it far easier for people who have suffered harm or financial loss to seek redress should. Although I agree with the common thread that has been expressed by many people that it is unclear what REUL is intended to achieve, it must not be allowed to throw the baby out with the bathwater.